Estate of Marvin L. Booker v. Gomez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4493
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Marvin Booker was arrested on a warrant and taken to the Denver Downtown Detention Center for booking; during booking deputies restrained him and he died shortly thereafter.
- Deputies Grimes, Gomez, Robinette, Sharp and Sgt. Rodriguez together used force: a carotid (neck) restraint held about 2.5 minutes, substantial weight on Booker’s back, an OPN (pain-compliance) on an ankle, and an 8-second Taser drive-stun while Booker was prone and handcuffed.
- Video evidence and inmate statements are in the record; factual disputes exist about whether Booker resisted and whether the carotid hold was released intermittently.
- After restraint, deputies placed Booker face-down in a cell; they did not promptly check vitals or call medical staff with clear urgency; a nurse arrived several minutes later and resuscitation failed.
- Autopsy listed cause as cardiorespiratory arrest during physical restraint and ruled the death a homicide; Plaintiffs allege excessive force (Fourteenth Amendment), deliberate indifference to medical needs, and supervisory liability; defendants claimed qualified immunity and urged individualized analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper constitutional standard for excessive force (Fourth v. Fourteenth) | Booker is a pretrial detainee; Fourteenth Amendment governs post-arrest excessive force | Fourth Amendment applies to seizure-related force; Fourteenth is inapplicable because force occurred in booking | Fourteenth governs here (pretrial detainee seized pursuant to warrant), but district court permissibly analyzed both standards and denial of immunity affirmed |
| Whether court must analyze each officer individually for qualified immunity | Officers acted jointly and each had duty to intervene; aggregate analysis appropriate | Must do individualized qualified-immunity inquiries for each defendant | Aggregated analysis was acceptable at summary judgment because all deputies actively participated and failure-to-intervene theory applies |
| Excessive force (constitutional violation / clearly established) | Force (neck hold, weight on back, Taser on subdued handcuffed detainee) was disproportionate, caused death, and violated clearly established law | Use of force was reasonable given alleged resistance; law not clearly established for these exact circumstances | A reasonable jury could find a Fourteenth Amendment due-process excessive-force violation; law was clearly established enough to deny qualified immunity |
| Failure to provide medical care (deliberate indifference / causation) | Deputies knew Booker was limp/unconscious, failed to check vitals or timely seek/communicate emergency care; delay contributed to death | Only a brief (~3 min) delay occurred; no proof delay caused death or that deputies were deliberately indifferent | Genuine factual disputes (Booker’s condition, adequacy/urgency of deputies’ notice to medical staff) preclude summary judgment; qualified immunity denied |
| Supervisory liability for Sgt. Rodriguez | Rodriguez actively participated (Taser) and failed to convey urgency to medical staff; set in motion constitutional violations | Lacked requisite personal involvement/culpability; qualified immunity protects supervisor | Satisfied elements for supervisory liability (personal involvement, causation, state of mind) to survive summary judgment; qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (legal test for qualified immunity and sequence of inquiries)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (discretion to decide prongs of qualified immunity test)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force factors and reasonableness inquiry)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainee protections under Due Process)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir.) (pressure on back of prone, restrained detainee can be excessive force)
- Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.) (Taser use on subdued person may be excessive; qualified-immunity analysis)
- Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (limits on interlocutory review of fact disputes in qualified-immunity appeals)
- Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322 (10th Cir.) (distinguishing which Amendment applies based on detainee’s place in criminal process)